For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole. There's never been a point in time when I admired him, and then disliked him because of his stance on Obama. I have always found Glenn Greenwald to be unerringly poor at choosing who to associate with, and defend.

Case in point:

Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.

If you don't know who Hale is, well, he's a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)

Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--

Indeed the Center's suit appears to link Hale's rejection into the bar to Smith's "rampage." In late June, the state bar's Committee on Character and Fitness again denied Hale's petition to join the bar. Smith, who had testified as a character witness for Hale that April, began shooting two days later. "Immediately after the Illinois State Bar's decision and as part of the World Church of the Creator's war, Smith ... began a rampage of genocidal violence," the lawsuit states.

And while Hale himself has linked the shootings to his bar application in the past, he said Tuesday that it's ridiculous to think he had any control over Smith.

SNIP

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith's parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.

It wasn't enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No--he had to insult the Plaintiffs--shooting victims. And then, he unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements. A court found that he violated TWO separate rules--

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),

That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--

"Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message "a caricature of what a coded message would be.""

3. "Wiretapping for me, but not for thee...." nt

133. This is so complicated IDK what he did. But this and another thread makes him seem like O'Keefe.

I was unaware of unethical things he has done until I read some of the articles posted here recently. I'd only read his writings on Salon about the GOP. He has a certain insight and extremely active.

It is his actions on the individuals used in his causes I find troubling. He has a disconnect between the harm he is causing and his zeal for his causes. He appears to use and discard people as if they are pawns in a game.

202. I have not been a fan of GG's since day one.

as I have said before, just because he was against W, doesn't mean much at all, because let's face it,
by the end of W's term, Dick Cheney was against W too.
So the faux message is meaningless.

And when one can find a Ron Paul/ Rand Paul connection in a few seconds ON GOOGLE where any info including people's phones can be found either for free or for (according to the ads, $4.95), this whole thing is yet another day another smear against the President.

and there is NO president in the past, including all the greats like FDR and Lincoln that did not do everything they could
(and Lincoln did it, THEN won reelection, the it was ratified that what he did was indeed allowed).

I myself am more afraid of Rand Paul, who today a poll showed was leading for 2016 in Michigan in the republican primary,
and I wondered, how in the world did Kentucky elect this clear and present and most unqualified person to be their senator.

and the person who whines and whines about big money, look how much more Rand Paul spent on buying an election
one that was ultra dirty in a state, that is not the biggest, and overspent (I don't have my calculator handy) what, 30-35% more
than his opponent to buy his seat.

203. Yes, the big money is there. I'm not sure who, but a DUer posted this and I saved it to read :

But there are, on the internet, also some individuals, and groups, who clearly promote agendas that coincide with the same agendas as the wealthiest and most powerful interests on the planet.

DU, Kos, etc. may seem insignificant to some, but as we all know,

(1) Money strongly influences information
(2) Information becomes public opinion
(3) Public opinion elects power
(4) Power greatly influences profit margins and the distribution of power
(5) The outcome of any election can depend on a single vote

I'm just sayin'...that there are people out there with unlimited wealth, who have no qualms about sparing no expense in using their money to spread information that will form public opinion, in order to elect candidates favorable to their private profit and power interests.

There are no restrictions, or financial considerations, preventing them from doing so. If I were of their corrupt ilk, corrupt ilk meaning individuals such as the Koch Brothers, I would definitely spend a few pennies to sway public opinion in my favor, everywhere, in order to promote my self interests.

(Come to think of it, I would probably even help finance a think tank to promote my self-serving agenda. Makes good logical sense.)

I would certainly finance individuals and groups whose function it would be to swing public opinion, and the Democratic Party, to the right in any way that I possibly could. Being filthy rich beyond comprehension, I would most assuredly do this. Actually, I would probably not even have to think about it, as it would be the task of some of my highly talented, extremely well paid employees, to insure that this was done...

The Koches and other cranky conservative billionaires fit this picture very well. They have unlimited money and the USSC decision on Citizens United. They will buy public opinion between now and 2014.

Their intention is not hidden - they intend nothing less than to 'starve the government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub' like a helpless baby. That is our government, the one people have fought to preserve because of unique ideals in the world, and democracy, which the Koch brothers think is weak and needs to be replaced with their strong man fascist model.

Along with over half of our population. Have we forgotten their words about us voters?

They call us parasites, godless, lazy, immoral, stupid breeders. They will do anything they can to root us out of their vision for a new world order.

Since they know it scares us, and it should, they taunt us by calling our leaders fascists, authoritarians, etc. But their replacement of what they call our morally weak, corrupt and unjust rule of the masses, will be the real deal.

They won't give up and we are the ones who will lose by not being united. They have found our achille's heel and are going to strike us there every day.

9. You are quite welcome. I hope to do a little more digging regarding the Hale case and Glenn's

115. It is indeed.

For me, I think what's most fucked up is the comments he made about the victims. It's one thing to take a case because you believe everyone deserves good representation, even people like white supremacists. It's quite another to go around badmouthing and slandering the people who were SHOT by said white supremacists.

And yet, this guy is held up as a superhero of the angry left, along with ex-neocons like Cenk Uygur, people like Jane Hamsher who call loyal Democrats "the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet" while shilling for Grover Norquist and being paid to elect Republicans, etcetera.

8. wow....just Wow!

illegally recording witnesses, conduct being found "unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""

11. Gee funny how you left this out

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.

90. Which quote??? I can't make you click the links and read. nt

94. All of the quotes point to one source.

A source which no longer seems to exist.

I've also got to wonder why you would link to the Rick Ross Institute. This hardly seems to be a legitimate organization.

You're calling Greenwald unethical on the basis of information which comes directly from someone who was himself charged with unlawful imprisonment and found liable for conspiracy to deprive a man of his civil rights and religious liberties.

103. Um, I did. Do you not understand how an archive works?

Let me give you an example. Judicial Watch are crazy ass mofos. But they archive judicial disclosure forms that are not available other places. So if you link to one of those forms, let's say Clarence Thomas's form, are you using Judicial Watch as a primary source? Of course you are not. They merely hold the archive.

105. American Lawyer Media/April 6, 2000 By Molly McDonough is the source. How is she not

credible?

Is it that you simply do not understand how things are archived on a website?

Edited to add--do you understand that if you link an AP story from FOX, you are still linking an AP story, right, not a FOX one? If you link a Reuters off of HuffPo, the primary source is Reuters, not HuffPo....I mean, this fairly elementary stuff.

108. You are posting falsely about Mr Ross. He was acquitted by jury trial***.

Lots of people, like American Neo Nazis and Scientologists don't like Rick Ross because he maintains an extensive archive on them.

You know the kid he was supposed to have harmed???? THANKFULLY, Jason Scott fired his Scientologist lawyer and hired Rick Ross to deprogram him. He settled his lawsuit for 5k and 200 hours of deprogramming.

(NOTE--this is WaPo article that is ARCHIVED by the seattle times!!!! Just like Rick Ross archived the article on Matt Hale that included the Greenwald quote. SEE HOW THAT WORKS???)

Are you a Scientologist?

Do you really think that you can defend Glenn Greenwald with Scientology propaganda???? I mean, I'm laughing a bit here--

Are you seriously suggesting that Rick Ross altered a web article? To defame Glen Greenwald, a DECADE+plus ago?

Okay--you don't like one of my sources, and you are using Scientology propaganda to defend Glen Greenwald. You've made my night. I suppose you think the judicial opinions are fabricated, too???? I suppose you think Matt Hale was mis-characterized??

Sorry, I wanted to add this on edit--I really, really hope you are now aware of the Scientology angle of your claims--essentially, you are claiming that rick ross altered an article about Matt Hale over a decade ago in order to defame Glen Greenwald. Seriously. You've repeated a false claim that he is a convicted criminal regarding Jason Scott (another Scientology claim.) I really do want you to explain the court filings, though.

*** in the matter of Jason Scott. According to a website that also claims he is a 'homosexual' he may have been on probation 30 years ago. Let me warn you about this site that 'exposes' Rick Ross--it's disgusting.

111. Are you still suggesting that an article from a decade ago was altered to defame Glenn Greenwald?

Are you suggesting that the court filings were altered, too?

Finally, with regards to the suggestion that Rick Ross is a convicted criminal, the only site I could find that backed that claim also suggested he needed to be exposed for his 'homosexuality.'

Given your tirade downthread about what you thought was bigoted commentary about Glenn Greenwald, do you have a source for your claims that does not attempt to bring Mr. Ross's sexual orientation into the discussion?

On edit--even if you don't like where one article is archived (you still haven't said anything about the source, mind you) are you maintaining that the legal filings were also altered???? To what purpose?

119. This is so sad. What's next, his guidance counselor said he was "surly?"

A few other things left out of the Wiki entry:

"In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks. The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog.""

21. I went to this link provided in the OP...

"Defendants' attacks on the magistrate judge's opinion are unpersuasive. They argue that the plain meaning of the rule does not prohibit surreptitious taping. But the law recognizes, in countless areas, that omitting material facts can be as misleading as affirmative misstatements. Attorneys, as officers of the court, are held to a particularly high standard of candor. This may include volunteering information that is not explicitly requested. That a conversation is being recorded is a material fact that must be disclosed by an attorney. Defendants also argue that modern technology and norms make the 1974 ABA opinion obsolete. The fact that recording conversations is much simpler and more pervasive now does not make it proper. If anything, it makes the need for this rule more compelling. The magistrate judge did not accept the ABA opinion blindly. He addressed each of these arguments, and his reasoning in rejecting them is thorough and logical. We agree with Magistrate Judge Ashman's reasoning in its entirety, and consequently need not repeat it here."

74. As someone else pointed out...

He was either willfully unethical or uninterested in understanding the laws of the State in which he "recorded telephone conversations with various third party witnesses, without disclosing to those witnesses that they were being recorded."

22. Here:

While I could question this guys methods, he seems like he's an anti-cultist and I can get behind that.

In any event, the link isn't really to Rick A. Ross, it's to a news article that Rick's site had archived, written by Molly McDonough. If you want to trash the source perhaps look into her back history.

64. I dunno. I've recognized implicit support for Paul in your posts.

I think it's a fair assessment given that you think he's being unfairly used as a "boogieman" when I think philosophically DU should be made aware of Ron Paul's far right wing ideology, and that there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling Ron Paul's ideology out. It only stood to reason that being so shook up over an "anti-cultist" that a Ron Paul supporter may be intimidated by such a link.

Though, of course, no such link existed, it was still quite interesting.

Also, your other statement about me being "shook up over an anti-cultist", is bullshit. The part of the Wikipedia profile I found most interesting was his early life, when he was knocking over liquor stores.

81. I think it was a fair assessment given the information available.

Note, I didn't actually say you were, I said you may be, which I think is fair, given the link you've provided so that others might see it. Ron Paul is no boogieman, he and his supporters have been posting repeatedly about him, some even signed up to spam the board, others seem to be long term supporters. Even if you think Ron Paul is just a "broken clock" who is right about some issues, why spend so much time fixated on it? Who spends so much time posting about broken clocks?

In any event, Rick Ross has absolutely no connection with the OP at all, which has been established.

92. Total garbage

The first thing anyone who reads that thread will notice, is my incredulity that any DUers would actually be supporting Paul. I'm incredulous because Ron Paul is a fucking moron. Later in the thread where I call him a bogeyman, it's simply to point out how the specter of Paul is being used to distract. Try some honesty sometime, you might like it.

97. I'm sorry for presenting that assumption, though.

Anyone is free to read the thread and come to their own conclusions. I personally do not think that the anti-Ron Paul sentiment is "a little forced and over the top" nor do I believe that there "seems to be a major effort to rally everyone against a bogeyman so we don't have to deal with our own house."

Indeed, I do think there are a number of DUers here who will try to discredit anyone or anything based upon their own notions directly related to presumed progressive support of Ron Paul.

169. Leave Glenn alone!

17. And we unethically tape millions.

I don't like Glenn. The guy is self-obsessed even for a blogger, and there is no lack of cases as above where he showed thoroughly poor judgment.

On the wickedness of some policies initiated by Bush and continued by Obama, however, he says much that is true, important, and rarely heard. I wouldn't choose Greenwald as my spokesman for these criticisms, let alone Ron Paul. When either makes a criticism I agree with, my agreement extends just that far. It does not extend to support, promotion, or worship of the person who makes it.

Further, when Obama does something I disagree with strongly, my disagreement extends just that far. It does not extend to my abandoning him in 2012 or to throwing everything of worth he's ever done into a bonfire of political purism.

When will people finally understand that assholes who oppose awful things do not in their opposition make awful things somehow worthy of support?

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.

In any case, Greenwald remains correct concerning Obama. Does that bother you?

under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person."

Now, his conduct is unethical under the rules. That does not mean the court has decided that he is an unethical person--it is not for the court to say.

That is the kind of parsing that Glenn can cling to--he's not an unethical person, just blissfully unaware of the local rules.....

147. Zzzzz

The court made a nice distinction between Greenwald's conduct and himself, which for the purposes of *our* judgment -- especially since Greenwald rails constantly about privacy, surveillance and related rights violations -- is insignificant.

62. I know we're not supposed to accuse DUer's of being liars, so I won't

"The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints."

114. I've been posting this story for years here

I'm glad it's finally getting some attention.

Don't think that it's unrelated to why the man doesn't still practice law.

But the story is even worse than you portray. Hale was eventually tried and convicted for soliciting the murder of the judge in this case (from an FBI informant). Even after--I repeat, even AFTER--he was charged with this serious crime Greenwald defended him in print, in the NYT.

In a total coincidence (or perhaps not), a year later, Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were found murdered in her home. Hale claimed he had nothing to do with it.

134. I would have preferred that you link to my work...

I've written a lot of other stuff about the singularly noxious Greenwald, so please click the "Glenn Greenwald" tags on my blogs. "Understanding Glenn Greenwald", though it is slightly technical, should be of interest to people of left-liberal sympathies who are attracted to Greenwald's (and for that matter Ron Paul's) attacks on Bush, Obama, the GWOT and related matters.

135. Oh my!! I went with the legal source....

as you can see from reading this thread, linking to blogs inevitably results in posters claiming that the blog is biased, particularly when the blog exposes some 'great liberal thinker' like Greenwald.

But you deserve the credit! I think the next time I post the original legal source, I will include a hat tip to any blog I found helpful...no matter the shitstorm that provokes.

142. Thanks, it's not a big deal.

And as I said, I'm happy more than a few people are paying attention to this now. It appears that Greenwald's "rape a nun" comment bestirred a larger-than-usual shit-storm that caused a few people to find that he secretly recorded Hale witnesses. I've been seeing some pass through my blogs.

Like you, I've never understood Greenwald's appeal. He's one of the worst writers I've read -- even rarely when I agree with him -- and palpably an awful public persona.

149. So nasty for so long

I certainly don't wish to stand athwart the tide of ANY mass denunciation of Greenwald, but when I saw ABL going after him and people piling on, all I could think was, "They wait until NOW to go after this guy?" He's been so nasty for so long, you know? And I thought it was ethically worse when Greenwald implied, without the slightest evidence or argument beyond assertion, that Adrian Lamo was faking Asperger's, sneering that it was a "somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed." It was identical to when Rush Limbaugh claimed Michael J. Fox was faking Parkinson's.

138. he seems to have replaced Jane Hamster around here lately.

140. He's treasurer of her PAC--

Interesting article on the financial connections between Hamsher and Greenwald.

"But this irony doesn't stop there. The very same Glenn Greenwald who is accusing the SEIU of trying to use OWS' language (heaven forbid!) for their own purposes (which, as a union, just happens to be supporting working people), penned another column earlier last week trying to sell (and promote) winter gear for the OWS protesters being disbursed by the notorious Firedoglake. But of course, Greenwald fails to mention that he stands to financially gain from donations to FDL, as the treasurer of FDL's PAC, Accountability Now, and his company, DMDM Enterprises, is used to taking money for "administrative expenses" from Accountability Now.

An examination of FEC reports shows that Greenwald's DMDM Enterprises received more than $40,000 from FDL's Accountability Now from 2008-2010, and of course, we have no idea how much more he has received as salary as Treasurer. (For those interested, yes, I have been working on a story on this with some help, and it keeps getting pushed back for different reasons - but expect a campaign finance story on Greenwald, Hamsher et al. to drop soon).

You would think the self-promoting epitome of virtue would bother to mention that he holds financial interest in the success of a campaign he is selling through his column on Salon. Something about disclosure and all."

151. Yay libel!

I uncovered this stuff in 2008. I am not a "political entity". You also seem to imply that I went after Greenwald because he's progressive. I don't believe he is progressive; I think he's a species of "libertarian", a Paulite non-interventionist dressed up as a Left Democrat. I argue this at length here.

That Greenwald is being re-exposed on the web site of a progressive community is good, because this myth that he's progressive needs to be debunked. Too many people of left-liberal sympathies are allured by his anti-neocon and anti-Israel fulminations -- much the same phenomenon you see playing out with Ron Paul, whom Glenn admires.

155. Done

162. Wait, wait, wait--did you just post an article criticize Greenwald while arguing for the Iraq War on

humanitarian grounds? And you're questioning other people's credential's as progressive?

The fact that the premise of this article is that Greenwald is bad for commenting on Israel's war crimes (which seems to be the fixation of your website in general--warmongering and whitewashing Israel's crimes) only makes this all the more farcical.

The premise of my article is Greenwald is often mistaken for some kind of progressive, but is actually a Paulite non-interventionist dressed up as a Left Democrat. I do imply that I am "a reasonable proponent of humanitarian military intervention", which remains true in relation to Saddam's Iraq -- I've never seen a cocksure "progressive" like you wring a hand over the Iraqis Saddam killed himself -- though if I had it to do over, I wouldn't put faith in the Bush administration to run a Kazakh DMV, let alone an American invasion of another country.

171. Pot. Meet Kettle.

191. Let me get this straight--someone who supports the Iraq War and opposes the Islamic Community Center

being built several blocks away from Ground Zero (yes, I actually took time to like at the blog you joined our site just to self-promote) is in the business of trolling the internet to expose Greenwald as not being a real progressive? And what is your basis for this? He's a "Paulian Anti-Interventionist" unlike progressive you who supported an illegal war of aggression that has caused a million Iraqi citizens to be killed?

I don't know what you know about this site, given that you just joined it to promote your blog and your fixation's on Glenn Greenwald, who dared to criticize Israel's bombing of Gaza, but it that's your definition of a progressive you aren't going to find any here.

As for Chomsky, I am very familiar with his writings and have even had the great honor of meeting him (very briefly) on two occasions. He is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul and it is comical to assert the two are part of some sort of similar political ideology. That being said I am not a cultish follower of either Chomsky or Greenwald--I can think of numerous positions I disagree with both of them on off the top of my head, but I still respect them deeply and admire their work (Chomsky more than Greenwald).

Only person who strikes me as a cultish follower is you--who joined this site just to spread your anti-Greenwald pro-war blog posts. I think if you wanted to raise the "you're only a progressive if you support the war in Iraq" bit I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

192. Zzzzzz

Thanks so much for taking the time, but while your eyes may have pored over what I've written here and on my blog, you've comprehended little. Whether that's by design or default I'm unable to say, though your "'deep' respect" for Chomsky and Greenwald suggest it's the latter.

195. Basic Reasoning

"'Chomsky' is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul and it is comical to assert the two are part of some sort of similar political ideology."

Good thing I didn't write that then. From what I did write, you can use the transitive relation to surmise that I believe Ron Paul, Greenwald and Chomsky all SHARE SOMETHING IN COMMON. Sharing something in common is different from BEING THE SAME, or even BROADLY SIMILAR. Shaquille O'neal, Noam Chomsky and Borat might all like ice cream; that doesn't make them "part of some sort of similar political ideology".

197. I'm going to keep pawing you around until I can overcome my insomnia

"'Chomsky' is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul..."

This is a non sequitur, but I should point out you don't understand the intellectual patrimony of your heroes. Chomsky, Paul and Greenwald share a common libertarian descent, though Chomsky is a kind of Left libertarian ("libertarian socialist"), Paul is clearly a Right "Libertarian" (in the modern American sense), and Greenwald incorporates elements of both. These are very different end points, but they share a common ancestry (related to anarchism), just like English and German are different "Germanic" languages descending from a common progenitor.

198. Dude. You are only playing with yourself.

Nothings getting pawed but your ego. You come back to a thread after a week because you have been rolling around in bed thinking to yourself "What I should have said....". When you hope that everyone has left the thread, you pile on and reply three times to the same post to make you feel like you made a point or won something. Pathetic.

Let it go. You got bested and not amount of "Oh yeah, well..." is gonna fix it.

You are only continuing to describe yourself in terms and with language that assures us of where you are. You love the nits. What happens in the real world as a result of nit-pickers like you doesn't concern you. You love to call names and hate being called names. You love to label others and refuse to label yourself.

199. Waay late to the party....

...and I love to break this to you, but Greenwald supported both of Bush's wars. And of course that includes, as you say, the "illegal war of aggression that has caused a million Iraqi citizens to be killed"

And he wanted "exact vengeance" on those dastardly Muslims who perpetrated 9/11:

"I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president's ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president's approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance."

So basically, schmucks like him enabled and set in motion all he now decries.

154. he must have struck a nerve if people are going to this much trouble to dig up dirt on him

156. Nothing strange here

Yes, as I wrote, the "nerve" is too many people of left-liberal sympathies are allured by Greenwald's anti-neocon and anti-Israel fulminations, much the same phenomenon you see playing out with Ron Paul, and I think they're led by both to a rather illiberal place. That, and Greenwald's obscene butchery of the English language, are my motivations.

160. That's a generality that skirts the issue.

Anyone can be right about anything, but you don't repeatedly and enthusiastically seek out and promote Hitler's views, on propaganda or cooking or parking for that matter, because there are other good sources on those things and most people wish to avoid being associated with Hitler. Some progressives repeatedly and enthusiastically seek out and promote Greenwald's prolix and awful writings, and that shows that illiberal ideas have gained traction among them in the last ten years, namely non-interventionism and Lindberghian fear and loathing of Israel.

179. You're continuing to miss the point

161. Also

His views on propaganda are not what was truly offensive about Hitler, whereas Greenwald's views on the US, the West and Israel (and his extenuations of their enemies) are central to his noxiousness. I won't bother you if you wish to praise and cite Greenwald's opinions on dogs.

159. Ron Paul, and Chomsky too

Not only are Greenwald and Ron Paul kindred spirits, but so are Greenwald and Noam Chomsky, for whom Greenwald has professed admiration. Greenwald's writing is consciously crafted after Chomsky's -- I mean the style, as well as some of the themes -- and Greenwald's defense of Hale was essentially his American attempt to recapitulate Chomsky's "free speech" defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. That comparison may serve further to confuse people by associating Greenwald with "progressivism", but besides stylistic and rhetorical tics and putrid intellectual hygine, Greenwald and Chomsky primarily share antipathy toward the US, the West and Israel rising from passionate inverse exceptionalism -- i.e., "our side" is always "as bad or worse" and it is our solemn civic duty to declaim this.

165. Thanks for this, msanthrope. This is truly fascinating

One of my favorite (former, unfortunately) DU posters, SemiCharmedQuark -- a gorgeous Latina -- is still smiting over this Greenwald piece from a few years ago where he bemoans that Republicans aren't spending enough time hustling out illegal immigrants. Who knew that Greenwald was also a wanna be GOP strategist?

173. Ah yes--Greenwald in his pre-Salon days. His piece on illegal immigration

174. Holy Smokes:

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Those evil illegal immigrants don't deserve amnesty!

Greenwald defended himself:

@sahar_shafqat That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

176. His "explanations" are often far more revealing than his usual writings

The old "nobody was reading my blog back then" excuse is particularly illuminating. And his propensity for such public insults I find immature, incredibly unprofessional and the mark of someone who is not convinced of his own arguments.

An old adage says that "character is who you are when no one is looking". For old GG, that may need to be changed to "character is who you are when no one is reading."

187. I think he is a Libertarian who made his money being a pseudo-liberal/progressive.

188. "Libertarian who made his money being a pseudo-liberal/progressive". This is why I will always.....

despise Bush/Cheney. They brought about an unholy coalition whereby "libertarianism" and "liberalism" got all tangled up together, and created this two headed monster.

It's like Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich had a love child, everyone knows this is one unattractive baby, but you're not allowed to say so, in polite society. As Thom Hartmann used to say, "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to get laid and smoke dope".

189. To add to your point...

More narrowly speaking, Bush/Cheney certainly galvanized, but did not bring about, the right-left non-interventionist consensus that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich share and Glenn Greenwald embodies. This iteration has been brewing since the Iron Curtain fell. It's also something that has occurred before in bellicose times. America First was a right-left coalition. Bush/Cheney made it more mainstream today by being so provocative and inept.

201. I'm not surprised you posted this. Kill the fuckin messenga!

205. I'd not been paying close attention last year and missed this

Greenwald's behavior is really bizarre. He's an American, married to a man and lives in Brazil because of DOMA. He never worked anywhere very long, and I question his honesty about anything he has done owing to his leaving one job to represent a White Supremacist. He secured a connection to The Guardian a relatively short time ago - last year. I think he hates Obama for a number of reasons. And I think he hates progressives possibly more.

This letter to The Nation points out some more interesting factoids before the Snowden affair.

"Email Address:
mbrahmana@gmail.com

After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald's anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as "civil libertarian" and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a <em>single</em> article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is "the same as Bush" to try to undermine Obama's support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine <emForbes</em> indicates Greenwald is "one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media," despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.

With this backdrop, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Glenn Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole within the progressive movement with the sole mission of undermining the movement. Specifically, with respect to authorized killing of Al Qaeda operatives: since when does one need a trial when one admits in writing continuously that they are part of Al Qaeda and are found to be engaged in an operational role in killing Americans? When have we <em>ever</em> asked on the battlefield whether one is authorized to defend oneself against the guy with the gun shooting at you, who is dressed in enemy gear and who has promised to kill you? Should we do as Greenwald suggests, and call a "time out" during the heat of battle and have a civil trial to determine whether this guy really is what he has demonstrated to be? I am all for due process when it make practical sense, but during the heat of battle when someone is actively trying to kill you, I think defending oneself first in battle and then defending oneself in court later if necessary appears to be the appropriate course of action. Maybe we should put Greenwald on the battlefield and see if he <em>really</em> thinks it's practical to call a time-out and go to court. Only in the wildest fantasy of an obsessed lawyer would such a thought even be possible, and Greenwald appears to be obsessed with second-guessing commanders on the ground, even though he himself could never really imagine what it is like to be on the battlefield of war.

War sucks, and I at least agree with Greenwald that we should avoid war if necessary, and quickly bring to an end any outstanding wars, as long as it is done responsibly so we do not have to go back in after we leave. But Greenwald's obsession with undermining Obama in this effort should make any progressive pause, especially given his right-wing background, his inability to write a single positive story about the Obama administration and his inability to write about anything other than civil liberties that progressives care about.